A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

I like the above description quite a bit. I'd argue, however for a slight modification:

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy better than other degrees.

You might be able to get work that you enjoy as a double women's studies major, but odds are high that you won't be working as a woman's studies professor. Whatever career you fall into would likely have been better served by a different degree.

Who needs 20 TBs of disk space?! I wonder if he's trying to back up the internet. As far as I can tell it just holds anime and movies. Of course his "server" runs 24 hours a day.

Hah!

This reminded me of a guy we had in a few months ago to provide training on some new technology we're implementing.

During a break, guy bragged that he had a massive server farm in his basement, 8 hefty multi-processor machines and even a hardware load balancer (F5), and he upgrades them every 2 years or so. The purpose? So he can "play around." I asked if his company bought all of this equipment for him.

Nope. Paid for on his own dime. My back of the napkin calculations put these expenses around 10K+, refreshed every year or two as he adds components or upgrades entirely. He also set up EMS SAN storage across servers, meaning: He's using corporate-grade equipment in at least some cases --- this stuff is not cheap.

In practically the same breath he then moved the conversation to how unaffordable college educations are for his kids.

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

I like the above description quite a bit. I'd argue, however for a slight modification:

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy better than other degrees.

You might be able to get work that you enjoy as a double women's studies major, but odds are high that you won't be working as a woman's studies professor. Whatever career you fall into would likely have been better served by a different degree.

That definition makes most degrees for most people fall into the "useless" definition - even STEM degrees.

Quantifying what makes a degree useful or useless seems very tricky, if not impossible, to me. So I'm always wary when someone uses those words, which is why I was wondering what austin meant when he said people here get "a less than useful or soft degree."

I would argue one can enjoy getting a degree and that makes it useful. I can see why others would say it's still a useless degree, you just enjoyed getting the useless degree.

What if you learned methods of thinking in your degree, but it didn't help you get work you enjoy? Is it still useless?

Logged

We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.You can also read my forum "Journal."

Usefulness of a degree implies a person sticks to one career. What about those that change careers mid way? Did their degrees suddenly become useless? How long should they be relevant to be considered a useful degree?

The work I do doesn't need a degree.. But it was the degree credentials that got me into my job. So is the degree useful even though I don't use any aspect of it?

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

I like the above description quite a bit. I'd argue, however for a slight modification:

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy better than other degrees.

You might be able to get work that you enjoy as a double women's studies major, but odds are high that you won't be working as a woman's studies professor. Whatever career you fall into would likely have been better served by a different degree.

That definition makes most degrees for most people fall into the "useless" definition - even STEM degrees.

Quantifying what makes a degree useful or useless seems very tricky, if not impossible, to me. So I'm always wary when someone uses those words, which is why I was wondering what austin meant when he said people here get "a less than useful or soft degree."

I would argue one can enjoy getting a degree and that makes it useful. I can see why others would say it's still a useless degree, you just enjoyed getting the useless degree.

What if you learned methods of thinking in your degree, but it didn't help you get work you enjoy? Is it still useless?

Yep, still useless because you could have learned the methods of thinking without the costs associated with the degree. We live in the information age. Learning of virtually any kind can be done pretty easily on your own initiative without the formal trappings of education.

A degree only serves as a piece of paper to stick behind glass. The purpose of that piece of paper is to get you work that you enjoy. If your piece of paper doesn't get you the work you enjoy (or if you could get the work you enjoy without it), you've wasted money on it.

The fact that so few people get work in their field demonstrates that the actual knowledge you acquire from a degree isn't too important for most jobs. They just want proof of a minimum baseline from which to draw employees.

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

I like the above description quite a bit. I'd argue, however for a slight modification:

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy better than other degrees.

You might be able to get work that you enjoy as a double women's studies major, but odds are high that you won't be working as a woman's studies professor. Whatever career you fall into would likely have been better served by a different degree.

That definition makes most degrees for most people fall into the "useless" definition - even STEM degrees.

Quantifying what makes a degree useful or useless seems very tricky, if not impossible, to me. So I'm always wary when someone uses those words, which is why I was wondering what austin meant when he said people here get "a less than useful or soft degree."

I would argue one can enjoy getting a degree and that makes it useful. I can see why others would say it's still a useless degree, you just enjoyed getting the useless degree.

What if you learned methods of thinking in your degree, but it didn't help you get work you enjoy? Is it still useless?

Yep, still useless because you could have learned the methods of thinking without the costs associated with the degree. We live in the information age. Learning of virtually any kind can be done pretty easily on your own initiative without the formal trappings of education.

A degree only serves as a piece of paper to stick behind glass. The purpose of that piece of paper is to get you work that you enjoy. If your piece of paper doesn't get you the work you enjoy (or if you could get the work you enjoy without it), you've wasted money on it.

The fact that so few people get work in their field demonstrates that the actual knowledge you acquire from a degree isn't too important for most jobs. They just want proof of a minimum baseline from which to draw employees.

Who needs 20 TBs of disk space?! I wonder if he's trying to back up the internet. As far as I can tell it just holds anime and movies. Of course his "server" runs 24 hours a day.

Hah!

This reminded me of a guy we had in a few months ago to provide training on some new technology we're implementing.

During a break, guy bragged that he had a massive server farm in his basement, 8 hefty multi-processor machines and even a hardware load balancer (F5), and he upgrades them every 2 years or so. The purpose? So he can "play around." I asked if his company bought all of this equipment for him.

Nope. Paid for on his own dime. My back of the napkin calculations put these expenses around 10K+, refreshed every year or two as he adds components or upgrades entirely. He also set up EMS SAN storage across servers, meaning: He's using corporate-grade equipment in at least some cases --- this stuff is not cheap.

In practically the same breath he then moved the conversation to how unaffordable college educations are for his kids.

He says he just likes to mess around, whatever that means. I take these comments to indicate that he's continuing to learn about his company's hardware and software offerings in his spare time, with his spare dimes. It ends up functioning as very expensive self-training.

But to your point -- I'm not sure anyone needs enterprise-level hardware at home unless your a member of anonymous or you're doing some very serious hosting.

Who needs 20 TBs of disk space?! I wonder if he's trying to back up the internet. As far as I can tell it just holds anime and movies. Of course his "server" runs 24 hours a day.

Hah!

This reminded me of a guy we had in a few months ago to provide training on some new technology we're implementing.

During a break, guy bragged that he had a massive server farm in his basement, 8 hefty multi-processor machines and even a hardware load balancer (F5), and he upgrades them every 2 years or so. The purpose? So he can "play around." I asked if his company bought all of this equipment for him.

Nope. Paid for on his own dime. My back of the napkin calculations put these expenses around 10K+, refreshed every year or two as he adds components or upgrades entirely. He also set up EMS SAN storage across servers, meaning: He's using corporate-grade equipment in at least some cases --- this stuff is not cheap.

In practically the same breath he then moved the conversation to how unaffordable college educations are for his kids.

Who needs 20 TBs of disk space?! I wonder if he's trying to back up the internet. As far as I can tell it just holds anime and movies. Of course his "server" runs 24 hours a day.

Hah!

This reminded me of a guy we had in a few months ago to provide training on some new technology we're implementing.

During a break, guy bragged that he had a massive server farm in his basement, 8 hefty multi-processor machines and even a hardware load balancer (F5), and he upgrades them every 2 years or so. The purpose? So he can "play around." I asked if his company bought all of this equipment for him.

Nope. Paid for on his own dime. My back of the napkin calculations put these expenses around 10K+, refreshed every year or two as he adds components or upgrades entirely. He also set up EMS SAN storage across servers, meaning: He's using corporate-grade equipment in at least some cases --- this stuff is not cheap.

In practically the same breath he then moved the conversation to how unaffordable college educations are for his kids.

To each his own, I guess, but it seems like lunacy to me.

But what does he use the corporate-grade stuff FOR?

Porn most likely.

My hat's off to any guy who needs more than 5 minutes of porn to get the job done. :P

In both science and math I think there's a lot more intuition and "feel" involved than outsiders might expect.

Indeed. Behind all the hand-waving in the lower-level easier classes there was quite a bit of incredible stuff. Make up some new math to do that, throw this out cause it feels tiny, guess a solution there and check it, wtf do we do about this 1/0. Kind of eye-opening how many smart and creative people it has taken to get where we are. That's not even getting into empirical and applied stuff or so much more, just scratching the surface for most with a bachelors whether it be a BA or a BS.

I happen to know a dozen or so professional musicians including a pretty good cello player. None of them are particularly rich, but as far as I know all earn enough to afford a solid middle class life. In few cases maybe a bit more than that.

I know a couple hundred working actors and musicians (my husband is in the industry). Fewer than 10% of them are earning enough to cover their basic living expenses by doing their art. Another 10-20% have a spouse that provides the bulk of the household income and covers the majority of the expenses. The rest are scraping by with multiple roommates, credit cards, and cobbling together a bunch of odd jobs (restaurants, tutoring, etc.) and government unemployment benefits. 75-90% of the members of the stage actor's union are unemployed at any given time, and they earned, on average $15,000 last year as actors.

I don't know any actors here so I can't comment on that at all, but if you are above average musician here you can make a pretty good living. Some of that is because there are a lot of rich people here who support arts. Most of the musicians I know earn part of their money by giving private lessons or working in a music school. Private cello lessons by the way go for 120-130 $/hour here. Money wise the best you could do is to get a permanent position in opera orchestra although not everyone wants because then your schedule doesn't depend from you alone anymore.

And do you spend more on entertainment than you do on paying for public professions that you deem essential? Does anyone you know do so?

Depends how you define entertainment and what exactly constitutes paying for essential professions. If entertainment is just music, shows, sports etc. then obviously not as that is a very small part of my yearly budget. I haven't paid anything at all to nurses, doctors or teachers this year except in my taxes and medical insurance. At my income level taxes + insurance is ca 30% of gross income. I doubt anyone I know spends that much on entertainment alone.

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

You can also argue that a degree is useful from a financial return perspective. They can be useful in multiple ways. I think the important (mustachian?) idea is to evaluate your decision/options and not just going in blind.

My husband is an above average musician (conservatory trained, the lot; I'll PM you proof if you want) and we're in a city with a lot of rich people who fund theater and the arts, and we're a national, if not international, tourist destination for that kind of thing too. I run the back office of some private music teachers too, actually, and know roughly what they make. There are still far, far, far more above average ability musicians and actors here than there are middle class level jobs for them, which is backed up by the statistics kept by their unions. Perhaps things are different there.

Or maybe the ones I know are the lucky ones. I'm not pretending on a statistically relevant overview.

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

I like the above description quite a bit. I'd argue, however for a slight modification:

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy better than other degrees.

You might be able to get work that you enjoy as a double women's studies major, but odds are high that you won't be working as a woman's studies professor. Whatever career you fall into would likely have been better served by a different degree.

That definition makes most degrees for most people fall into the "useless" definition - even STEM degrees.

Quantifying what makes a degree useful or useless seems very tricky, if not impossible, to me. So I'm always wary when someone uses those words, which is why I was wondering what austin meant when he said people here get "a less than useful or soft degree."

I would argue one can enjoy getting a degree and that makes it useful. I can see why others would say it's still a useless degree, you just enjoyed getting the useless degree.

What if you learned methods of thinking in your degree, but it didn't help you get work you enjoy? Is it still useless?

Yep, still useless because you could have learned the methods of thinking without the costs associated with the degree. We live in the information age. Learning of virtually any kind can be done pretty easily on your own initiative without the formal trappings of education.

A degree only serves as a piece of paper to stick behind glass. The purpose of that piece of paper is to get you work that you enjoy. If your piece of paper doesn't get you the work you enjoy (or if you could get the work you enjoy without it), you've wasted money on it.

The fact that so few people get work in their field demonstrates that the actual knowledge you acquire from a degree isn't too important for most jobs. They just want proof of a minimum baseline from which to draw employees.

Who you know* > what you know

*provided you can at least DO the job you get obviously.

Wow, I have watched this unfold with fascination. I have a BA and a BS (guess that makes me stupid too?) with three majors. In my current (and final) career, I use NONE of the three majors directly, but all three are critical in my day-to-day success. I would not be here without having chased each of those majors for a period of time, leading to the next opportunities and finally to this one.

At the job I have now, I use skills learned in all three majors, almost every day. I am fearless about public speaking, because my teaching (BS) and music (BA) majors prepared me for how to behave in front of a large group. My teaching skills help me manage negotiations and discussions in difficult groups. The business skills (second BA major) make everyday analysis of data and information possible.

So yes, they're all just "pieces of paper behind glass" but a broad and meandering career doesn't mean that the education that started it was a waste. Talking with others in my industry, most of us took this path. Our education informs us, but the words on our diplomas rarely match the words in our job titles.

How do I measure "success" in my job? If I screw up, no one dies (I could never be a nurse). I don't make all that much money, at least not how you guys seem to measure it. But success looks like: millions of people having a seamless experience in a public venue, without ever having to know that the work I do even goes on behind the scenes. Success is the respect of my peers who join me in this work. And finally, success is knowing that I brought my A game to the table and made a difference.

As the person who asked the question that seems to have had a part in starting this topic, I must say I've learned a lot. Nothing useful to me, but interesting nonetheless. However, it wasn't until the comment below that I felt the need to take this even more off-topic. :-)

Wow, I have watched this unfold with fascination. I have a BA and a BS (guess that makes me stupid too?) with three majors. In my current (and final) career, I use NONE of the three majors directly, but all three are critical in my day-to-day success. I would not be here without having chased each of those majors for a period of time, leading to the next opportunities and finally to this one.

At the job I have now, I use skills learned in all three majors, almost every day. I am fearless about public speaking, because my teaching (BS) and music (BA) majors prepared me for how to behave in front of a large group. My teaching skills help me manage negotiations and discussions in difficult groups. The business skills (second BA major) make everyday analysis of data and information possible.

So yes, they're all just "pieces of paper behind glass" but a broad and meandering career doesn't mean that the education that started it was a waste. Talking with others in my industry, most of us took this path. Our education informs us, but the words on our diplomas rarely match the words in our job titles.

How do I measure "success" in my job? If I screw up, no one dies (I could never be a nurse). I don't make all that much money, at least not how you guys seem to measure it. But success looks like: millions of people having a seamless experience in a public venue, without ever having to know that the work I do even goes on behind the scenes. Success is the respect of my peers who join me in this work. And finally, success is knowing that I brought my A game to the table and made a difference.

First off, I'm not attacking you. I think it's awesome that you have found value in your degrees. The question I'd ask you, since you have such a positive outlook secondary education, is how much the journey helped you as opposed to the skills. As has been mentioned before, the knowledge and skills to reach a degree are available without actually going through a degree course. Do you think that you personally benefited from part of the process, and how so?

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy. (It's not useful for its educational value because you can get the education without the degree.)

I like the above description quite a bit. I'd argue, however for a slight modification:

A degree is useful if it enables you do work that you enjoy better than other degrees.

You might be able to get work that you enjoy as a double women's studies major, but odds are high that you won't be working as a woman's studies professor. Whatever career you fall into would likely have been better served by a different degree.

That definition makes most degrees for most people fall into the "useless" definition - even STEM degrees.

Quantifying what makes a degree useful or useless seems very tricky, if not impossible, to me. So I'm always wary when someone uses those words, which is why I was wondering what austin meant when he said people here get "a less than useful or soft degree."

I would argue one can enjoy getting a degree and that makes it useful. I can see why others would say it's still a useless degree, you just enjoyed getting the useless degree.

What if you learned methods of thinking in your degree, but it didn't help you get work you enjoy? Is it still useless?

Oh, Arbelspy! We silly liberal arts majors just need to learn to be put in our place. Don't we realize that without those typing a few lines of code, or studying data on rocks, or making mathematical proofs which only three other people will read, the world will END? How could those things NOT be more useful than studying human nature?Some of us have talents in multiple directions and - gasp! - CHOSE to do liberal arts! Clearly, stupid and useless. Drains on humanity!Some people just don't have enough sense of their own inherent self worth and so feel the need to put others down for making choices which they wouldn't (or couldn't) have made. It's rather silly, and also a sign of poor intelligence, I might add. You might be smart in your code or your reading of data or math or what have you, but you're still not as smart as you think you are if you feel the need to put down other people because their intelligence takes a different form than yours.Can we please get back to making fun of people's stupid financial decisions that we've heard at work? I'm sorry I ever mentioned this story in the first place. The intent was to make people laugh, not to open up another "my degree is better than yours because thpbtffft!" discussion.

At work the other day my cubemate is looking at his investment portfolio online when his Boss comes and sits down next to him to discuss something. I have no idea what he is invested in but his boss looks at the screen and asks. "Oh hey, you have a lot of stocks, why don't you just invest in the company?"

Cubemate looks at him and says "I own some company stock but I don't think it's a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket, what if we tank one day?"

Boss replies "But you're an employee! You can change the direction of the company and you know the outcome!"

Cubemate responds "If I knew the outcome then marketing campaign X this year was a real surprise to me!"

I have no idea what my cube mate is invested in, I hope it's all index funds but if not that at least I'm glad that he knows enough to be diversified.

Quantifying what makes a degree useful or useless seems very tricky, if not impossible, to me. So I'm always wary when someone uses those words, which is why I was wondering what austin meant when he said people here get "a less than useful or soft degree."

I would argue one can enjoy getting a degree and that makes it useful. I can see why others would say it's still a useless degree, you just enjoyed getting the useless degree.

What if you learned methods of thinking in your degree, but it didn't help you get work you enjoy? Is it still useless?

Oh, Arbelspy! We silly liberal arts majors just need to learn to be put in our place. Don't we realize that without those typing a few lines of code, or studying data on rocks, or making mathematical proofs which only three other people will read, the world will END? How could those things NOT be more useful than studying human nature?Some of us have talents in multiple directions and - gasp! - CHOSE to do liberal arts! Clearly, stupid and useless. Drains on humanity!Some people just don't have enough sense of their own inherent self worth and so feel the need to put others down for making choices which they wouldn't (or couldn't) have made. It's rather silly, and also a sign of poor intelligence, I might add. You might be smart in your code or your reading of data or math or what have you, but you're still not as smart as you think you are if you feel the need to put down other people because their intelligence takes a different form than yours.Can we please get back to making fun of people's stupid financial decisions that we've heard at work? I'm sorry I ever mentioned this story in the first place. The intent was to make people laugh, not to open up another "my degree is better than yours because thpbtffft!" discussion.

Ah, SisterX...so much awesomeness comes from you, I can't believe this was really you. On to the snarky reply:

Some of us read the comments, and the context of said comments.Some people have enough self worth to not take things personally. ;-)

On a more serious note, does liberal arts equate with a BA? I never bothered looking into it, and while I could Google it, it seems subjective, and I'd be more curious as to the explanation from people here.

As the person who asked the question that seems to have had a part in starting this topic, I must say I've learned a lot. Nothing useful to me, but interesting nonetheless. However, it wasn't until the comment below that I felt the need to take this even more off-topic. :-)

Wow, I have watched this unfold with fascination. I have a BA and a BS (guess that makes me stupid too?) with three majors. In my current (and final) career, I use NONE of the three majors directly, but all three are critical in my day-to-day success. I would not be here without having chased each of those majors for a period of time, leading to the next opportunities and finally to this one.

At the job I have now, I use skills learned in all three majors, almost every day. I am fearless about public speaking, because my teaching (BS) and music (BA) majors prepared me for how to behave in front of a large group. My teaching skills help me manage negotiations and discussions in difficult groups. The business skills (second BA major) make everyday analysis of data and information possible.

So yes, they're all just "pieces of paper behind glass" but a broad and meandering career doesn't mean that the education that started it was a waste. Talking with others in my industry, most of us took this path. Our education informs us, but the words on our diplomas rarely match the words in our job titles.

How do I measure "success" in my job? If I screw up, no one dies (I could never be a nurse). I don't make all that much money, at least not how you guys seem to measure it. But success looks like: millions of people having a seamless experience in a public venue, without ever having to know that the work I do even goes on behind the scenes. Success is the respect of my peers who join me in this work. And finally, success is knowing that I brought my A game to the table and made a difference.

First off, I'm not attacking you. I think it's awesome that you have found value in your degrees. The question I'd ask you, since you have such a positive outlook secondary education, is how much the journey helped you as opposed to the skills. As has been mentioned before, the knowledge and skills to reach a degree are available without actually going through a degree course. Do you think that you personally benefited from part of the process, and how so?

Hmmm. Looking back, I could have (maybe) and should have (maybe) done a different degree-- that is, if I had known then what I know now. But here's the thing: I didn't know. I thought I was going to get my music degree, marry well and join the junior league. A little worry about that plan led me to double major with business. And then a summer job (which my music degree landed me) led to a permanent change of geography, which led to a new idea about teaching, which led to the second degree, which led to a short-lived and unsuccessful teaching career (I am not cut out to teach junior high), which led to a post-teaching-career "whew!" job, which led to this one....

College is only a small part of this journey. Looking back, the classes paid off in ways that I can't know for sure-- playing piano made me a super fast typist. Music theory helps (they say) in understanding and using software. Learning to write clearly from multiple teachers in multiple kinds of classes benefits my work every day. Knowing how to read a balance sheet and to call bullshit when I see cash flow that doesn't make sense-- that helps too. And then there's the random stuff about public health, and human genetics, and the history of Western Music, and the relationship of Art and Religion, that come in to play at odd times and in odd moments at work. (I do have a very interesting job, come to think of it.)

Could I have learned all these things on my own? Maybe. But would I have? There is a lot to be said for the structure of having to sit in a class and take notes and tests. And I'm a big believer that developing neural connections in random ways helps one become more mentally flexible for the next learning challenge.

Two degrees here engineering bachelors and financial math masters but sometimes I think I should have become a plummer first, then an electrician and then a car mechanic. I love all that shit but am utterly useless at it.

As the person who asked the question that seems to have had a part in starting this topic, I must say I've learned a lot. Nothing useful to me, but interesting nonetheless. However, it wasn't until the comment below that I felt the need to take this even more off-topic. :-)

Wow, I have watched this unfold with fascination. I have a BA and a BS (guess that makes me stupid too?) with three majors. In my current (and final) career, I use NONE of the three majors directly, but all three are critical in my day-to-day success. I would not be here without having chased each of those majors for a period of time, leading to the next opportunities and finally to this one.

At the job I have now, I use skills learned in all three majors, almost every day. I am fearless about public speaking, because my teaching (BS) and music (BA) majors prepared me for how to behave in front of a large group. My teaching skills help me manage negotiations and discussions in difficult groups. The business skills (second BA major) make everyday analysis of data and information possible.

So yes, they're all just "pieces of paper behind glass" but a broad and meandering career doesn't mean that the education that started it was a waste. Talking with others in my industry, most of us took this path. Our education informs us, but the words on our diplomas rarely match the words in our job titles.

How do I measure "success" in my job? If I screw up, no one dies (I could never be a nurse). I don't make all that much money, at least not how you guys seem to measure it. But success looks like: millions of people having a seamless experience in a public venue, without ever having to know that the work I do even goes on behind the scenes. Success is the respect of my peers who join me in this work. And finally, success is knowing that I brought my A game to the table and made a difference.

First off, I'm not attacking you. I think it's awesome that you have found value in your degrees. The question I'd ask you, since you have such a positive outlook secondary education, is how much the journey helped you as opposed to the skills. As has been mentioned before, the knowledge and skills to reach a degree are available without actually going through a degree course. Do you think that you personally benefited from part of the process, and how so?

Hmmm. Looking back, I could have (maybe) and should have (maybe) done a different degree-- that is, if I had known then what I know now. But here's the thing: I didn't know. I thought I was going to get my music degree, marry well and join the junior league. A little worry about that plan led me to double major with business. And then a summer job (which my music degree landed me) led to a permanent change of geography, which led to a new idea about teaching, which led to the second degree, which led to a short-lived and unsuccessful teaching career (I am not cut out to teach junior high), which led to a post-teaching-career "whew!" job, which led to this one....

College is only a small part of this journey. Looking back, the classes paid off in ways that I can't know for sure-- playing piano made me a super fast typist. Music theory helps (they say) in understanding and using software. Learning to write clearly from multiple teachers in multiple kinds of classes benefits my work every day. Knowing how to read a balance sheet and to call bullshit when I see cash flow that doesn't make sense-- that helps too. And then there's the random stuff about public health, and human genetics, and the history of Western Music, and the relationship of Art and Religion, that come in to play at odd times and in odd moments at work. (I do have a very interesting job, come to think of it.)

Could I have learned all these things on my own? Maybe. But would I have? There is a lot to be said for the structure of having to sit in a class and take notes and tests. And I'm a big believer that developing neural connections in random ways helps one become more mentally flexible for the next learning challenge.

Does that help at all?

That does help, although I would argue the point that college was only a small part of that journey. I think that the structure of the secondary education system did provide you with a good amount of guidance.

I'm constantly re-evaluating my beliefs, and I do understand that what is, and what I think should be, are different; your response helps. It makes one wonder if things are going to take a turn with the next generation, who focuses on skill, as opposed to nepotism, relationships, or arbitrary documents. It certainly should, but I do wonder how many lives have been changed by an experience like yours.

It's not shit, but it's not great compared to what I could get with an equivalent qualification in, say, CS. And not have to work nights, weekends and public holidays. And not have people spit in my face. Plus there's the home town (dis)advantage. [...]

It's not shit, but it's not great compared to what I could get with an equivalent qualification in, say, CS. And not have to work nights, weekends and public holidays. And not have people spit in my face. Plus there's the home town (dis)advantage. [...]

I hope it's the babies spitting in your face...

Um, not always...

I have friends who are emergency room nurses. In this town (probably like many others) the ER operates as a de facto drunk tank, and the street alcoholics are regular guests who are NOT easy to be around. Spitting is the least of the nurses' troubles...

The receptionist at my office rents a home in the mountains and commutes 50 minutes each way to a job that pays around $30,000. Her husband is an hourly employee at grocery store. Last year we had some terrible flooding in the area that took out a number of roads. I overheard this receptionist saying that her and her husband were applying for FEMA money because the flood washed out main commuter road which increased their commutes even further to a point where it was costing her husband more in gas to get to and from their home than he was making by being at the job. They both drive jeeps. The person being told this story said "why not just move closer to work" and the receptionist snapped back that it wasn't an option because they were "mountain people." Mountain people, mind you, that just recently moved to the area from a large east coast city.

On a more serious note, does liberal arts equate with a BA? I never bothered looking into it, and while I could Google it, it seems subjective, and I'd be more curious as to the explanation from people here.

I wasn't taking it personally, which was why I was attempting a humorous tone. Did it not come through that way?

Liberal arts clearly does not always equate with BA, however the original post by Sol was yet another "I'm better because I don't have a silly, wasteful liberal arts degree" remark.

The receptionist at my office rents a home in the mountains and commutes 50 minutes each way to a job that pays around $30,000. Her husband is an hourly employee at grocery store. Last year we had some terrible flooding in the area that took out a number of roads. I overheard this receptionist saying that her and her husband were applying for FEMA money because the flood washed out main commuter road which increased their commutes even further to a point where it was costing her husband more in gas to get to and from their home than he was making by being at the job. They both drive jeeps. The person being told this story said "why not just move closer to work" and the receptionist snapped back that it wasn't an option because they were "mountain people." Mountain people, mind you, that just recently moved to the area from a large east coast city.

I have a BA in history from a selective liberals arts college. The main value I got from the degree was...meeting my husband on campus. Now, this is not a trivial thing. While it's certainly possible that I could have met someone similar without going to college, college is this magical place where the admissions office has kindly pre-selected a group of peers for you who are similar in age, intelligence and background. I suspect I would have met someone similar at a state school, though it probably would have been harder because the caliber of the students tends to be lower on average.

Which skills or qualities that are important to you in a husband tend to be found in "selective" schools more than state schools?

Also I'm pretty sure that college admissions offices are strongly encouraged to select people with vastly different backgrounds, or is that just at the State schools? (Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by background?)

So I actually have a BS in Business Admin (marketing concentration) at a state school. Supposedly a BS is "more prestigious". All I can really say is we did a little more calculus than normal, more computer/database work, and a fairly challenging statistics course (at least for some students).

I don't know anything about SAT scores but I'm really happy to hear that I got a score that was better than average at your University despite no studying and only taking the test once. Maybe thats a really petty thing to bring up but I have very little else to hang my hat on from a prestige standpoint.

I definitely didn't say that admissions offices strive to get a proportional representation of the US. I think 18 years of growing up in a totally different culture constitutes a different background, regardless of how much Paddington Bear you guys watched as kids. I wonder if the fact that you met your husband in America is making you take for granted how different your backgrounds really are... How much time have you spent in his hometown or with his childhood friends? As an American with a Japanese spouse living in Japan I feel like there are lots of "common sense" ideas in one country that are totally alien to the other.

Also if you find it difficult (impossible?) to love or respect someone who is less intelligent (as measured by IQ or SAT?) or that would make less money than you, then why do you expect your husband to love and respect you? Maybe thats a bit harsh but I'm always interested on why its generally acceptable for women to expect (demand?) to marry a smarter/harder working/ richer guy.

It was important to me that I respect and admire my long-term partner and I felt this was integral to that. I also wanted someone who had substantially higher earning power and was comfortable being the breadwinner. Whether I'd have made the same choices were my husband hit by a bus tomorrow (I doubt I'd remarry, tbh) is beside the point; those were my priorities the last time I was single, which was at 19.

I sort of think this is finally back on topic of this thread.....but you need to read it as if a CW of her hubby is posting.

Some posts (in this thread recently) are a like a train wreck to me, I know what's coming but can't help but read.

I feel like if I'd said I was super career oriented and wanted a husband who was willing to be a stay at home dad and make my career the more important you wouldn't be bothered, even if the result is similar.

My disgust has nothing to do with gender, other than that it also happens to conform to stereotype.

So should someone who wants a high powered, time intensive career, place no thought into how this is likely to affect their home and family life? If a person like that wants someone who places a low value on earning money and is interested in being the high earner's support system, is that bad, or is it only bad if the low earner comes up with that idea on their own, without the high earner's suggestion?

You are free to do whatever you like. I am free to call you out for being a shallow golddigger.

I could divorce my wife and take up with a perky 19 year old with daddy issues. You would be free to call me a dirty old man.

I'm all for live and let live, but neither of us would expect to publicly proclaim our shallow self-centered behavior without expecting some backlash. I have merely offered you what you surely already expected, an appropriate label for your 19 year-old self.

A woman who makes "rich breadwinner" her primary criteria in choosing a mate is no different from a man who makes "big titties" his primary criteria in choosing a mate.

Maybe you deserve each other? In that case, I wish you happiness and long life. Far away from me and my family, as I'm raising children here and I'm trying to protect them from attitudes like yours for as long as possible.

Also if you find it difficult (impossible?) to love or respect someone who is less intelligent (as measured by IQ or SAT?) or that would make less money than you, then why do you expect your husband to love and respect you? Maybe thats a bit harsh but I'm always interested on why its generally acceptable for women to expect (demand?) to marry a smarter/harder working/ richer guy.

Different people want different things, which is how relationships even work. I could never date younger guys, myself. My age or a few years older was fine/great, but I couldn't respect someone younger in the way I needed to so I would feel attracted to and/or love them. And like serpentstooth, I needed someone who was smarter than me. I evaluated it somewhat differently; my bf dropped out of college and I'm doing my PhD, and he's still, fundamentally, more intelligent. It's not important to me that he out-earn me, or that I stay home (in fact, I'm glad he's open to being the stay at home parent, at least ideologically). My requirement has more to do with wanting to have an intellectual conversation and being able to learn from him. And you know what? It's entirely possible that he finds me smarter than him, too. In fact, it's entirely possible that we both are smarter than each other, just in slightly different ways.

So why is it wrong for me to want the opposite? I wanted to be the mother of many children, which is generally incompatible with a career. Pregnancy alone is hard to handle while working, let alone several in realistically quick succession. I wanted to home school. My husband thinks these, along with all my other contributions on the domestic realm are good and interesting and valuable and he respects me for them. He wanted different things in a marriage partner than I did.

It's only sexist if you advocate for this as the natural/expected/correct state of existence for everyone. I think the beauty of feminism is giving everyone all the options, and that includes respecting women who choose to stay home and raise their kids!

I don't find less intelligent people unworthy of respect or admiration in general. But what I find pleasant in a sales clerk or colleague or employee or acquaintance or friend is different than what I wanted in the most significant relationship in my life. Marriage is the one place it's a very good idea to be discriminating, in the old sense of the word.

Totally agreed! Political correctness just doesn't hold in relationships. I mean, I guess maybe if you "do/don't date [race/nationality] guys/girls because they're [stereotypical trait]" that's a douche view to hold. But if it just comes down to "I've just never been attracted to tall/short/hairy/bald/blue eyed/smart/dumb/educated/handy/clumsy/etc" then there's not much that can be done. People just like different traits in each other, and that's awesome!

Also if you find it difficult (impossible?) to love or respect someone who is less intelligent (as measured by IQ or SAT?) or that would make less money than you, then why do you expect your husband to love and respect you? Maybe thats a bit harsh but I'm always interested on why its generally acceptable for women to expect (demand?) to marry a smarter/harder working/ richer guy.

I'm not sure if it's fair for me to single out women as trying to marry up. I notice it way more but maybe that's leftover from when I was really lonely and felt like I wasn't good enough for a lot of women.

Galliver you seem to be describing a relationship where you have roughly the same level of intelligence that's awesome. I'm not trying to attack anyone for valuing intelligence or work ethic or earning power or whatever.

But it seems problematic to want someone that is "better" than you. Maybe it's hard to argue if older or younger or blue eyes or green eyes or tall or short are "better" but who would prefer to be less intelligent or earn less money for the same work? People never say I want to marry someone who is more intelligent but less physically attractive or more prone to disease than me, is that just implied?

If I'm starting a bakery and I'm looking for a partner to split the profits 50/50 it's perfectly reasonable that I expect them to be good at baking but why should I reasonably expect someone to accept my terms if I demand someone that is "better" at baking than me (assuming I don't specify any areas where I will pick up the slack?)

With regards to the i7 and SLI GPU's, some possible reasons for the setup2) Some people donate computational time to scientific research (called folding)3) It may be a steam box (basically a console for playing PC games on the TV)4) Bitcoin mining (though, it is getting harder and harder to make money from it).

4) makes no sense for at least 2 years, even 1st and 2nd generation ASICs are now too slow. Just a week a go a Berlin startup said it woudl build a "supercomputer" just for mining. Which is from Bitcoins own point of view a very dumb thing. In short, Bitcoin mining is only profitable anymore for commercial miners.

I prefer gridcoin, which creates blocks without energy wasted, but determinescoin output based on:2) BOINC projects (not just protein folding) - Gridcoin pays you for your work (great if you already doing that, like me) and hopefully moves miners from wasting energy on chainbuilding to donating it to science.

I value "being smart" a LOT on my relationships. It is really a defining point when i choose a life long partner. He should be just as smart as I am. Or smarter in different areas / dumber in others. I think it's very important because it helps us to learn from each other, to have constructive talks about every topic. And his brains is a big part of why i love and respect him so much. This is not being a gold digger, this is wanting to grow in life together.On the other hand, his ability to make money is borderline irrelevant to me. He is unemployed, is yet to figure out what he wants to work on. I fell in love with computers early in life, so I make good bucks. The money is enough for our little family of 2. If he gets a job, nice. Our journey to FI will just be accelerated. If not, he will still be there for us to joke and talk and love each other without money being a issue.

On topic:

As a part of benefits package, some jobs offer a "debit card" that you can use only on grocery stores. Every month the employer deposits X value (say, R$200.00) on your account, and you use it just like a regular account, but the card is only accepted on select grocery stores. Giving out this card instead of money saves the employer some tax money, so it's very common in Brazil.

I was talking to a ex-coworker (i changed jobs, he stayed) about grocery spending and mentioned that on my new job i don't get this special card, that the money is deposited directly on my regular checking account, which i love, because i can save money on groceries and spend the money in something else (cough, investments, cough).

He was flabbergasted. Couldn't wrap his mind on how I had money to pay for groceries without the card. Because money on the checking account is spent, and then it wont have enough for groceries at the end of the month.

So should someone who wants a high powered, time intensive career, place no thought into how this is likely to affect their home and family life? If a person like that wants someone who places a low value on earning money and is interested in being the high earner's support system, is that bad, or is it only bad if the low earner comes up with that idea on their own, without the high earner's suggestion?

You are free to do whatever you like. I am free to call you out for being a shallow golddigger.

I could divorce my wife and take up with a perky 19 year old with daddy issues. You would be free to call me a dirty old man.

I'm all for live and let live, but neither of us would expect to publicly proclaim our shallow self-centered behavior without expecting some backlash. I have merely offered you what you surely already expected, an appropriate label for your 19 year-old self.

A woman who makes "rich breadwinner" her primary criteria in choosing a mate is no different from a man who makes "big titties" his primary criteria in choosing a mate.

Maybe you deserve each other? In that case, I wish you happiness and long life. Far away from me and my family, as I'm raising children here and I'm trying to protect them from attitudes like yours for as long as possible.

Our college only granted BA, BF and BM degrees. So my husband has BA degrees in Computer Science and Math. It's never been considered a problem or inferior to a BS, as far as I know.

Hmmm . .. a degree in BMs? I think we can all agree that that is a . . . shitty degree?

:P

Bachelor of Music, I think. Much like the earlier BS vs. BA conversation, the BMs looked down on the BA Music majors (of whom I was one).

Yup. My husband has one in Piano Performance. The conservatory gave out BMs in ______ performance, the liberal arts college offered a generic music BA. I don't remember much tension, but if you wanted to do vocal or anything musical that wasn't classical performance, you had to get a BA. Our year had some pretty solid composers, two phenomenal cellists who were good enough to go to the conservatory but had more serious academic interests than musical, a modern composer and a couple women who are now working opera singers.

When I did work at an old age home, bowel movements were referred to as BMs. Hence the joke about the BM degree. :P

So should someone who wants a high powered, time intensive career, place no thought into how this is likely to affect their home and family life? If a person like that wants someone who places a low value on earning money and is interested in being the high earner's support system, is that bad, or is it only bad if the low earner comes up with that idea on their own, without the high earner's suggestion?

You are free to do whatever you like. I am free to call you out for being a shallow golddigger.

I could divorce my wife and take up with a perky 19 year old with daddy issues. You would be free to call me a dirty old man.

I'm all for live and let live, but neither of us would expect to publicly proclaim our shallow self-centered behavior without expecting some backlash. I have merely offered you what you surely already expected, an appropriate label for your 19 year-old self.

A woman who makes "rich breadwinner" her primary criteria in choosing a mate is no different from a man who makes "big titties" his primary criteria in choosing a mate.

Maybe you deserve each other? In that case, I wish you happiness and long life. Far away from me and my family, as I'm raising children here and I'm trying to protect them from attitudes like yours for as long as possible.

Eh, I think you're going a little crazy. She knew she wanted to be able to support her family, it's not like she was asking him to support her jewelry habit. Big difference, and at least it's thought out and wasn't a whim. Not for me, but I get it.